Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Condensing boilers | Main | The naked climatologist? »

The Greenhouse Conspiracy

I'm sure many of my readers have seen this 1990 documentary on the greenhouse effect - sort of an early version of the Great Global Warming Swindle - but it's the first time I've seen it.

I was struck firstly by how shifty-eyed Tom Wigley and John Mitchell come across, particularly when Wigley is asked about funding at around 46 mins. If you don't want to invest the time in the full video, this is the excerpt to watch.

Then there is the clear statement by the late Reginald Newell that he had his funding cut because of he had published a paper that undermined the greenhouse theory.

It's all rather amazing how little the debate has moved on in twenty years.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (21)

Better quality here...


Jan 1, 2011 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Thanks, I've posted an update.

Jan 1, 2011 at 10:03 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Which of the six videos is the one to watch with Wigley coming across as shifty-eyed, please?

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A;
Part 5 at about 4 minutes in.

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterFergalR

One day the debate must get out of the blogosphere into the mainstream, and the history of the debate, with clear reliable quotes from participants, will be vital. One of the most useful things we footbloggers can do, I think, is transcribe documents like this. (Alex Cull, Ben Pile and I recently did this to the Brian Cox Lecture and put the result up at Harmless Sky). Once my mother-in-law is fed and watered, I’ll start work on video 1. Any offers of help?

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

If my children were younger, i would try and persuade them to watch these videos. I think that they are as relevant today as they were when they were filmed.
Pretty well all of the debate has been captured in the series and many of our current heros are featured. Long may they continue with our support and admiration.
Well worth watching the whole series in my opinion.

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Ahh yes, Uncle Tom Wriggley

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

At about the 38 minute mark it did say that increasing CO2 may well cause a cooling trend........

I didn't say it, it's in the vid.

Jan 1, 2011 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered Commenteraardvark


I like the notion of "footbloggers". Did you have Kipling in mind?

"We're foot-blog-blog-blog-bloggin' over climate change -
Foot-foot-foot-foot-bloggin' over climate change-
(Words-words-words-words-movin' up an' down again!)
There's no discharge in the war!"

Jan 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Hilary Lawson, interestingly enough is the author of "Dismantling Truth: Science in Post-Modern Times". He and Ravetz should debate! He has an impressive list of broadcast science and current affairs programmes to his credit and appears to have been Channel 4's Brian Cox of the 90's.
geoffchambers, I may have a stab at the last one if I have time...

Jan 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustin Ert

aardvark, just before High Noon: And there you have it.

Jan 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, that Wriggle of Tiggle is just under a minute, and is comical. As in cartoon.

Jan 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Hi, this is 6. Very short! Not sure where you want this. Don't mean to clog up this thread, but some nice parting thoughts from Pat Micheals...

…that, is it the millennium that encourages notions of an apocalypses? Or simply that in a world without belief…we need a catastrophe to give us something to believe in. Where for once, in a battle between nature and humankind we can line up on the side of good against the forces of evil.

It’s things being (unclear) followed with all lines and zip codes, I don’t know if you realise that, there’s a lot of blood on this thing.

In what way

People hate each other about this issue. You haven’t noticed that? You ever seen a nastier scientific issue?

Why do you think that is?

I don’t know. I guess because people passionately feel that it’s a battle between good and evil.

If the consequences of the greenhouse theory did not extend beyond a moral crusade, it could be left to those of a religious turn of mind. But it cannot be so lightly ignored.

Would you march down the road toward a policy which people have rightfully said required our economic restructuring of the world, knowing that the world was behaving opposite to what the basis of that policy said.

Jan 1, 2011 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustin Ert

It's things being unclear
Followed with lines and zip codes.
There's blood on this thing.


Jan 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

I liked this clip which I had never seen before
Armed Response to 'Climategate' question

Jan 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Thanks Justin Ert. I’ve transcribed video 1 and will have a go at video 2 later. As His Grace says, it's amazing how little the debate has moved on in twenty years, which is why I feel this stuff is worth transcribing, not for it’s scientific value (though it seems pretty good) but as a historical document. The debate hasn’t moved on because the debate hasn’t happened, which is an important fact in itself. When the debate does happen, it will be important to know who said what and when.
I won’t clog up this thread with the transcription, but will hang on to it and think about what to do with it.

Jan 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

If you oppose the theory, life can get difficult

More than shifty, he had to take 30 seconds to think up an answer! Also, is it just me or has Lindzen not changed a bit in 20 years?!

Jan 1, 2011 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

Ha, ha, ha, that nose wiggling at 2:08 in video 5 is hilarious.

Jan 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

Great vid, Your Grace; "soft money" indeed.

Jan 2, 2011 at 12:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterhardened cynic

I just watched the vid. Wow! It's become incredibly subversive in 20 years, and it's proven to be so prescient. This is definitely a Climate Change doco classic!

I can't believe that this was shown on SBS, an Aussie public TV network that became one of the biggest doomsayers in recent decades. How times change! How religions spread!

Jan 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

United States Government induced Global warming by implementing two nuclear power plants to heat the Ocean 2 to 4 degrees .The price tag would be enormous , as they new it would take 30 to 40 years before any real results would take place.They named the Project EL-NINO , this Translates into English as little one or little child ,it also translates to THE STORM..At the same time they had another project called Haarp, many people including Jay Ventura (Conspiracy Theory) believed that Haarp was a way of creating weather some even believed it was an attempt at mind control ,in reality Haarp was created to melt the northern Ice Cap , using High Frequency. If global warming was caused by Co 2 , green house gasses or would find that the northern and southern Ice caps or the Colombian Ice fields in Alberta would be melting at the same rate . I assure you they are not ,a quick check on the Internet will reveal satellite Images of all three and only the Northern Icecap is disappearing .I had gone on Google earth and laughed when I seen that they have already removed the northern Ice Cap.the south still remains .It not only remains on google Earth but you will find that the satellite Images they have today are Identical to the Images you have on the Globe you bought in the 60's and 70's or back in the 1800's.. They had another project , underneath the Indian OCean the Earths Crust is at it's thinnest there is a lot of Volcanic activity.They wanted to use a number of Atomic weapons or weapons of that nature to blow a massive hole in the Earths Crust . Heat from the Earth's Core would also heat the Ocean again creating Global warming.,however they new that a tsunami that size \ would destroy anything in it's wake ,There was a number of issues with doing this ,you only have to look at the Damage that these Blast did . Yes they were aware of this back 40 years ago,Fukushima had just been furnished and discussions about a meltdown and the results were reviewed .We also felt if the USA did this that thwould cause World War 3
I was taught this in 1970 this does not do what I learned justice

James O'Connor

Jun 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames O'Connor

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>